The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-09-28
BRookHAvEs Miss. Aug. q. 1851

BRooKHAvEN, Miss, Aug. %, 1887.
Hon. Jefferson Davis: Dear Sir Yours
of the 10th inst. received on my return
home from an absence OF some days.
Through an inadvertence the printed copy
of your letter to Ex-Governor Lubbock of
Texas was not returned in my let ter of the
10th inst. | herewith enclose it, and re-
greet that my reply to your favor of the
18th inst. was not satisfactory. 1t occur
red to me tina. such an explanation would
be more acceptable to you than marked
passages in your printed letter, without
note or comment. With assurances OF
personal regard and well wishes, am re-
specially and truly yours,
1t will be seen from the above that in
stead of my arraigning or attacking you,
| spoke of your virtues, abilities and
history in terms of high appreciation.
And those sentiments | still cherish
without rebate, albeit you characterize
them in your open letter "as the gar
lands with which in the olden time a
charge me with persistence in unjusti-
udDl6 dSSdllIucuC. lscSpcCllul ulucE-
ence of opinion should be courteously
regarded and never become an occasion
of personal disagreement-and shall not
on my part. Only infallibility can
claim exemption from variant views.
You anticipated criticisms of the Texas
letter, and in advance, denominated
them "the objurgations' of "the follow
ers of the popularism of the day." This
impotence OF opposing opinion kindly
expressed and intended, is therefore diff
icult of discernment. 1t is possibly at
tributable to the unforeseen free use
and shameless abuse of your great name
by the saloon elements of society-ranks
in which your views have not heretofore
been familiar and popular.
Another fact is evident from the
above. In my address there was little
reference to the doctrine promulgated
in your Texas letter, but rather lament
at its effects both upon your reputation
and the cause of morality, and for the
proud boast of the whisky traffic in
having such a champion. True you
made ne specific reference to the "sa-
loons," but they quickly OWNED the
logic of your letter and have placed you
in the forefront of their leaders. One
"must readily perceive" therefore, that
instead OF lodging an issue as you init
mate, my first letter was fully explana-
tory of my address, and an absolute
justification of every sentiment therein
expressed.
Your ':open letter" contains much that
is irrevelvant, but as Importance prop
erly attaches to your every utterance, in
the interest of growing moral reform
| shall make respectful responses and
not "answer by irrelevant catch-words. !"
You call attention to the distinction be-
tween personal inalienable rights which
the government was bound to protect
and "privileges which government might
refuse or grant as the public welfare
should require" You further simplify
the question by saying that ''to keep a
saloon is not a personal right but a
privilege" And again you wisely say
81 hold it to be one of the inalienable
rights of man to do as he pleases with
his own, provided he inficts no injury
on another" A clear understanding of
these basal principles will so illuminate
the whole subject so that no one need
err therein. / understand, then, that
you eliminate the saloon business from
the class of personal inalienable rights"
and of course. because of its evil effects,
as you hold mans right "to do as he
pleases with his own, provided he inhIcts
no injury on another" Now, if keeping
a saloon is privilege" and not per
sonal right" the same must be true of
the whole whisky traffic. And so the
question has been regarded by jurists,
statesmen and legislators. In our State
of Mississippi, from the days of her
territorial minority, even before she
attained unto the dignity of statehood,
the sale of liquor has been subjected to
statutory restrictions. | do not see,
therefore, according to your definitions
and admissions, that the doctrine of
personal inalienable rights" has any
place in the discussion of the sale of
Intoxicating liquors. To use your own
earnest words uttered in the Senate of
the United States, / must say, "how
idle is this prating about national rights
as standing above the obligations of
civil government"
Judge Cooley, an eminent and I'M
doubted authority, in his great work on
Constitutional Limitations, has em-
ployed almost your exact language in
defining civil rights to embrace "the
right to do everything not harmful to
the public or other individuals" On
this definition great law writer makes
the following judicious and almost
automatic observations:
"Whenever private right becomes in
furious, noxious or offensive to the public
good, the private right becomes subordi-
nate to the public right which communi-
ty has to demand protection therefrom
Acts, innocent themselves, acquire from
the quality of injuring the
public. To carry arms about ones person
for purposes of self-proieciion is in itself
an innocent act. But when citizens gen.
orally do the same thing. the tendency is
to create disorder and cause the unjustif-
able taking of human life the state, there
fore, prohibits the carrying of dangerous
weapons concealed upon ones person. So
It may be said of the traffic in intoxicat-
ing liquors, that Notwithstanding it may
be innocent itself, it may nevertheless, by
force of circumstances, be injurious to the
public welfare and dangerous To the public
peace. And if this be so, the private right
Of all has become subordinate to the public
right of protection. We conclude, therefore,
10 indulge in a traffic which renders life
and property insecure, which promotes
and creates public paupers to
be supported at the States expense. If it
appears that the traffic in intoxicating
liquors does all this, the Justice of the
principle that would prohibit and stamp
put the miserable traffic cannot be denied y |
And the Supreme Court of the United |
States, through Chief Justice fancy,
affirmed the same doctrine in these |
words: 'sIf any State deems the retail |
ind internal traffic in ardent spirits in
urious to its citizens, and calculated to |
produce idleness, vice or debauchery, / |
zee nothing in the constitution of the |
United States to prevent it from regu-
ating or restricting the traffic, or from
it altogether, if it thinks
roper" Judge Cooley, above quoted
avs: aThe same laws also have been
sustained wher the conflict with State
constitutions or with Fundamental prin-
iples has been raised" The Supreme
,ourt of Mississippi says: The State
nay deal with the subject by absolute
or by regulations And
rom similar authorities / could pile
'elion upon Ossa- In face Of these
authoritative and accepted interpreta-
ions Of fundamental principles,
our reference to sthe sacrifice Of per-
Dnal liberty and moral responsibility. .
nd 70 sthe substitution Of force for |
re VII ATS, n ~ your own phrase,
The only question for Tho people 70